The Hofstaðir Archaeofauna
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Zooarch Draft 3/21/2009 draft Hofstaðir Monograph chapter The Hofstaðir Archaeofauna Thomas H. McGovern, Sophia Perdikaris, Ingrid Mainland, Philippa Ascough, Vicki Ewens, Arni Einarsson Jane Sidell, George Hambrecht, Ramona Harrison Zooarchaeology Chapter in Gavin Lucas (ed.) 2009, Hofstaðir: a Viking Age Center in Northeastern Iceland, Oxbow, in press CUNY Northern Science and Education Center NORSEC CUNY Doctoral Program in Anthropology Brooklyn College Zooarchaeology Laboratory Hunter College Zooarchaeology Laboratory June 10th 2008 Contact: [email protected] A product of the North Atlantic Biocultural Organization (NABO) Research Cooperative and the International Polar Year (IPY 2007-10) Collaboration 1 Zooarch Draft 3/21/2009 draft Hofstaðir Monograph chapter Hofstaðir : A Viking Age Center in Northeastern Iceland Gavin Lucas University of Iceland Monograph in Press, August 2008 The Hofstaðir Archaeofauna Zooarchaeology Chapter in Lucas 2008, in press Thomas H. McGovern, Sophia Perdikaris, Ingrid Mainland, Philippa Ascough, Vicki Ewens, Arni Einarsson Jane Sidell, George Hambrecht, Ramona Harrison Early stages of the investigations at Hofstaðir directed by the Archaeological Institute Iceland revealed that substantial amounts of well-preserved animal bone were present in contexts throughout the site, with a major concentration in the fill of the large sunken featured structure G. The site directors kindly involved the NABO zooarchaeologists (led through various seasons by Tom McGovern and Sophia Perdikaris), and the zooarchaeology team was able to participate directly in the field excavations from 1996 onwards. The modern open area excavation of this major Viking Age hall and its associated buildings offered a unique opportunity for North Atlantic zooarchaeology, allowing comparisons of bone assemblages from fully excavated middens and structures and the combination of horizontal and vertical stratigraphic perspectives on the interpretation of site formation processes. The close cooperation between excavators and specialists continued from fieldwork through post-excavation analysis, and has unquestionably improved the quality of this report. The analysis and interpretation of the Hofstaðir archaeofauna has also greatly benefited from comparative zooarchaeological evidence from contemporary nearby sites in the Mývatn area (Mývatnssveit) carried out under the larger Landscapes of Settlement project, and this analysis will make use of comparative zooarchaeological data from the contemporary sites of Sveigakot (SVK) and Hrísheimar (HRH). Both of these sites are on the southern side of the Mývatn basin, near the present boundary of the interior erosion desert.Both were settled before Hofstaðir, with cultural deposits directly upon the AD 871+/-2 Landnám tephra. Sveigakot appears to have been initially a relatively low status site which achieved modest prosperity in the mid-10th c before declining in the 11th c and being finally abandoned in the 12th century. This site probably saw several cycles of abandonment and re-occupation, possibly by households of declining status. The site of Hrísheimar (just across the Kráká River from Sveigakot) by contrast seems to have been of solid upper-middle status, and is associated with a pre- christian burial and higher status artifact assemblage (including a bronze sword chape and a knife handle made from a walrus penis bone). Hrísheimar was heavily involved in iron production, and may represent a comparatively wealthy household with wide economic contacts. Hrísheimar was apparently abandoned prior to the H1104 tephra fall, possibly due to depletion of bog iron sources nearby or to the opening of better settlement opportunities elsewhere in Iceland 2 Zooarch Draft 3/21/2009 draft Hofstaðir Monograph chapter or Greenland by the later 11th century. Both tephra isochrones (Veiðivötn ~940AD & the Landnám sequence AD 871+/-2) and multiple AMS radiocarbon dates confirm that Sveigakot and Hrísheimar were occupied at the same time, with their later phases precisely contemporary with Phase I and II at Hofstaðir. While the archaeofauna from the productive midden deposits at Sveigakot has been fully analyzed, the exceptionally large archaeofauna from Hrísheimar is still under analysis and comparative data presented here is still preliminary. This chapter will thus make use of the comparative perspective provided by the contrasting small/ medium farm at Sveigakot and the medium/ large farm at Hrísheimar. Recovery & Preservation: Except for re-deposited spoil of the 1907 Bruun excavations and deposits of pure structural turf, all contexts at Hofstaðir were sieved through 4 mm mesh, with substantial whole-soil samples retained for flotation. The silty andisols of the Mývatn area are comparatively easy to dry- sieve, the international crews were uniformly keen eyed and enthusiastic about bone, and the spoil heaps were commendably sterile throughout. The other archaeofauna collected from contemporary sites in the Mývatnssveit area were excavated using the same methods (and often the same crews). Soil acidity in Mývatnssveit generally varies between a pH of 6.25-6.75 (7 neutral). This range provides for generally excellent conditions of bone preservation, and all sites and site areas compared here have closely similar soil pH levels. While any archaeological excavation will inevitably introduce its own set of patterns into any data set recovered, we feel that the Hofstaðir and other Mývatnssveit archaeofauna are excavated to a consistently high standard and that comparability in recovery has been achieved as far as is possible. Bone Fragments by Phase: Table zz1 presents an overview of the total Hofstaðir archaeofauna, presenting the total number of bone fragments (identified and unidentified) for each of the site phases. While the total archaeofauna (including re-deposited Bruun spoil and medieval to early modern deposits in the area of the ruins) comes to 109,373 fragments, this chapter will report only the Viking Age archaeofauna (totaling 102,761 fragments). As the table indicates, the majority of these fragments come from Phase I (mainly from midden material deposited in sunken featured structure G) and from Phase II (G fill plus midden material from area E). The small collection coming from either phase I or II has not been included in most analytic work, but the material from phase III (which must be made almost entirely of material from Phase II) has been regularly included in a combined Phase II-III. 3 Zooarch Draft 3/21/2009 draft Hofstaðir Monograph chapter Table zz 1 Bone Fragments by Phase Period/Association Phase Total Fragments % Viking Age c AD 940-1000 I 34,983 31.99 c AD 1000-1050 II 59,669 54.56 c AD 940-1050 I-II 1,310 1.20 c AD 1050 III 6,799 6.22 total Viking Age 102,761 93.95 Medieval - Post Medieval Medieval- E Modern III-VII 212 0.19 Medieval- E Modern V-VI 252 0.23 Medieval- E Modern IV-VII 758 0.69 c AD 1850 VII 283 0.26 Bruun Excavation VIII 1,259 1.15 c AD 1850 + Bruun VII-VIII 3,780 3.46 total Medieval/Post Med/Bruun 6,544 5.98 unstratified contexts 68 0.06 total all periods 109,373 Site Formation Issues: The span of time covered by the whole Viking Age archaeofauna at Hofstaðir is short; probably somewhere around a century, possibly only three or four human generations. The substantial amounts of Figure 1 bone and other refuse deposited during this period is an indirect measure of the intensity of the site’s occupation and the number of activities carried out in and around the excavated buildings. Bone has accumulated on floors, in sheet middens around the structures (the largest of which is context [1144] in area E) and in the fill of sunken featured structure G, which seems to have functioned as a general refuse dump for the farm following its abandonment. Figure zz 1 illustrates the distribution of major midden concentrations by Phase II at Hofstaðir, indicating the position of the E [1144] sheet midden outside the Northwest skali (A/B) door, and the midden in sunken featured structure G (by later Phase II associated with a thin sheet midden spread to the north). Abandoned sunken featured structures at the nearby sites of Hrísheimar and Sveigakot were also used as refuse dumps, and this seems to have been a widespread practical solution to both the problems of household refuse disposal and the infilling of an inconveniently steep sided pit in the farmyard area. The sunken featured 4 Zooarch Draft 3/21/2009 draft Hofstaðir Monograph chapter structures also seem to have provided particularly favorable conditions for the preservation of bone, especially the more fragile elements. The middens were not simply bone dumps; they contain large volumes of ash, charcoal, and fire damaged stones as well as burnt bone indicating fireplace cleaning activity. The middens regularly received refuse from both outdoor and indoor activities, and bone element distribution analysis indicates that mammal bone from all stages of butchery (from slaughter and initial dismemberment through cooking, consumption, dog scavenging and final deposition) has been included in the same midden deposits. Cut and polished bone fragments and segments of horn core representing craft working debris, as well as lost or discarded finished artifacts are found in the same midden contexts. Some midden deposits derive from large scale (perhaps seasonal) cleanings which deposited large volumes of refuse accumulated over the course of a year or more from many different activities. Other midden contexts represent